Republican Debates

[jacob]

Is anyone taping them? Can't watch cause of rehearsal.

jts

[schaefe]

Pretty sure it will be posted on YouTube...

[Monahan]

... hopefully dubbed over with hilarious guitar solos.

[megank77]

I'm watching. There was a guy with a guitar at the beginning, it was fun and awkward. They just got all angry and Republicany from there. So far I heart Huckabee, but maybe its just because of his name.

[megank77]

OK Giuliani's video ad wins so far, mostly because he mentioned King Kong.

[Hamer]

My favorite part -

Anderson Cooper: "What's up with that?"

[megank77]

Nothing beats Chuck Norris:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE

[speedymarie]

So far I heart Huckabee, but maybe its just because of his name.
Mike Huckabee is articulate and charming. I almost said "intelligent" because he comes across that way, but he basically denies evolution and has said he believes in a 6000 year old Earth. And says that he doesn't understand what those beliefs have to do with being President, as he's not trying to write science text books.

Religious beliefs have a HUGE effect on the policies pushed by a President. Not to mention that I do not want as my President someone so overwhelmed by their faith that they can completely deny all rationality and ignore basic science. How can I trust his judgement on anything else if his judgement can't be trusted on basic science?

Sorry. Huckabee is a sore subject with me. ;)

[Frymire]

Mike Huckabee is articulate and charming. I almost said "intelligent" because he comes across that way, but he basically denies evolution and has said he believes in a 6000 year old Earth. And says that he doesn't understand what those beliefs have to do with being President, as he's not trying to write science text books.

Religious beliefs have a HUGE effect on the policies pushed by a President. Not to mention that I do not want as my President someone so overwhelmed by their faith that they can completely deny all rationality and ignore basic science. How can I trust his judgement on anything else if his judgement can't be trusted on basic science?

Sorry. Huckabee is a sore subject with me. ;)

I think that's an easy argument to make and believe considering that for almost the last 8 years we've been subjected to a President and an administration that has used matters of religion and spiritually to manipulate conservative Christians, especially in how they used such issues as gay marriage to swing the vote in 2004, but I don't think the argument "religious beliefs have a huge effect on the policies pushed by the President" holds water when you look at past administrations, with perhaps the exception of Ronald Reagan.

I'll admit, though, I could be missing something.

http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

I'll also add that I think calling a person of any faith - Christian, Muslim, Buddist, whatever - unintelligent based on their faith is as intolerant as a person of faith damning someone else to hell because one doesn't believe the things the other does.

I'm counting the seconds till this gets moved to the Politico Forum.

[Edison]

Almost 50 years ago a lot of people were freaking out at the idea of an Irish-Catholic sitting in the oval office. Kennedy did ok, though.

Who's kidding whom? Essentially the White House has always been occupied by Christians. I don't necessarily have a problem with it until they get frothy and righteous about it, like Reagan or GW.
What seems clear is the use of zealotry by some nation's leaders, to gain support for whatever crazy fascist or imperialist agenda they have.

I'm just tired of the 'They're the evil empire' rhetoric that we've been handed for so long. Shouldn't we know better by now? Our own leaders have an interest in creating enemies out of countries they can't control or exploit. There's big business to be done, and the corporations need new growth opportunities.

My nightmare is that fundamentalist thinking will ultimately immanentize the eschaton. It's just like a crazy fundamentalist to fulfill their own prophesies, if only to say they were right.

[speedymarie]

I'll also add that I think calling a person of any faith - Christian, Muslim, Buddist, whatever - unintelligent based on their faith is as intolerant as a person of faith damning someone else to hell because one doesn't believe the things the other does.

Ok, fair enough. Let me clarify a little so I sound less like a religious bigot.

I don't consider the vast majority of people with faith "unintelligent" (and I didn't really say that, though I suppose it could be implied). Most people have faith in a higher god (or God) without completely ignoring science.

But it's hard for me to separate intelligence from the ability to look rationally at science. Faith that completely ignores all rational science (like dinosaurs and rock layers and carbon dating and evolution) is saying that, in essence, science is not real. To me, that IS unintelligent.

I'm talking about these people: http://www.creationmuseum.org/

[Frymire]

I see what you're saying, Speedy, nor do I think you're a religious bigot.

The thing is, I don't understand the importance of people, including Presidential candidates, reconciling their faith with science. For most religions, the two don't go together at all, because you have to deny some very basic scientific tenets to be able to buy into the religion, or spiritual belief, or whatever you call it. Take Christianity. To be a Christian (by the most common Christian standards), you have to believe that a virgin gave birth to a man, who was the human embodiment of God, who was killed, and then rose from the dead three days later. To buy into just that, you have to deny basic biology. And that's not even getting to the whole part about a knowledge-yielding fruit.

For most, having a spiritual faith in something means believing in something completely, even if it means having to look totally unreasonable, even in the face of science.

Having a person of some sort of faith in office is going to be a reality for a long time to come, especially considering that over 80% of Americans identify themselves with a religion, with over 75% of that being Christianity. The best thing to hope for is that it'll stop being used to manipulate people; used as a smoke screen to get people away from the real issues, such as it was done in 2004. (And the people behind that aren't truly Christian; they were just using "Christianity" for their own purposes.)

Bottom line is, Mike Huckabee isn't a bad candidate just because he believes the Earth is 6000 years old. Hell, if we got someone in office who was truly Christian, truly a "do unto others..." type guy, it would be much better than what we have now.

And by saying that, I'm not endorsing or saying I'm voting for Huckabee. I'm just sayin'.

So...when are the debates?

[speedymarie]

Some sort of faith is completely different from fundamentalist faith. I never said that someone of faith shouldn't be President.

There are plenty of Christians who see the Bible not as fact, but as a metaphor. They don't deny evolution or try to claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old, because Genesis says so. They don't believe that man walked with the dinosaurs (or that God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test us).

These many, many people have a grasp on reality that fundamentalists lack (IMHO). I cannot respect, or trust, someone who looks at hundreds of years of scientific inquiry into the AGE OF THE EARTH and says "But the Bible says 6000 years, so that's what I believe!"

Similar to the evolution question. Evolution itself is a fact, the scientific method can prove that it's been happening for more than a billion years, it's not something you can or cannot "believe" in. The "theories" of evolution aren't whether evolution is real, the theories are what is the mechanism that drives evolution. Creationism/ID has nothing to support it except the Bible, which doesn't fall under the scientific method. Therefore, it's not science. If you put creationism to the scientific method and look for evidence, it falls apart. Creationism = faith. Evolution = Science.

The Bible says you can stone your son for disobeying, or sell your daughter into slavery, and a lot of other stuff that is no longer believed. I'm sure Huckabee wouldn't take his son to the city gates and stone him to death, but he still believes in the 6000 year old Earth and thinks God dropped Adam and Eve on a planet all ready for them?

The reason these questions are important in a political debate is that they're basically signpost statements. Huckabee says he doesn't believe in evolution. I can probably guess, with 90% or more accuracy, his belief in a host of other political issues that I find important, such as abortion, gay marriage, teaching creationsim in schools and other education issues, space exploration, and the types of people he's going to nominate to the Supreme Court and to high political offices.

But also, like I said, there's his ability to grasp reality and respect science. Science is about finding evidence and supporting conclusions with proof. Someone who favors faith or belief over evidence in science will likely (in my opinion) act in a similar matter on issues not religious/scientific in nature, and act more on their "beliefs" than the evidence before them. The scientific method can be applied to any problem - collect evidence to prove a hypothesis. Acting on "belief" rather than "evidnece" - That's how we got into Iraq.

[Frymire]

Acting on "belief" rather than "evidnece" - That's how we got into Iraq.If by that you mean that Bush has taken us to and kept us in Iraq because he's just following his gut, and he believes it's the right thing to do despite all the evidence against it, I would have to say I disagree with that. I think Bush planned on going after Saddam from day one of his Presidency, and he was going to do it using whatever methods he had to. If 9/11 hadn't been there to serve as a reason, Bush & Friends would have found another reason. The war isn't a case of a President so set on what he believes that he refuses to consider the evidence, it's a case of a President, and his group of people, so set on doing what they want, right or wrong, they'll throw whatever reasons they can at the masses to justify their actions.

And once again I'll say, with the exception of Dubya and Reagan, I don't think the argument, "A President's religious beliefs will affect his policies" would have really strong legs if one looked closely into it. I would even argue that Dubya's supposed faith does not reflect his policies: "Helping the least among you" certainly went out the window with his administration's reactions to Katrina and the 2004 tsunami.

I think most successful Presidential candidates have manipulated the image of what degree they are religious to suit the needs of their campaign. Even Obama has been accused of doing it. They have to do it to be successful, because, as said before, over 75% of Americans consider themselves Christian. To be a Presidential candidate and not present yourself as at least somewhat religious, would be committing political suicide if you seriously expected to win.

Say what you will about Huckabee, at least the man is completely honest about his faith and his religious points of view. I don't think you could say that about many other candidates.

I'll wrap this up, Speedy, by saying that I'm not taking anything you say personally, and I hope you're not either. We don't know each other that well, and debating over the net can be tricky, so I just want to be sure that this stays an interesting topic to talk about, and doesn't actually cause any ill will.

[Scol]

It is too sweeping a generalization to refer to a "Person of faith" (a term I dislike, but that's for another argument) as unintelligent. But, when they deny science and reason, they are deliberately engaging in foolishness. And such behavior never met an I.Q. it didn't like.

[speedymarie]

It is too sweeping a generalization to refer to a "Person of faith" (a term I dislike, but that's for another argument) as unintelligent. But, when they deny science and reason, they are deliberately engaging in foolishness.

Right. Which is why I DIDN'T do that. I'm talking specifically about extreme fundamentalists, which is a much narrower category.

And no, Frymire, I'm not offended at all. This has been an extremely civilized debate. :)

And I agree with you that if Chrisitan politicians followed the true tenets of their faith - helping the poor, etc, many would be putting emphasis in different places - we'd likely have a lot more of an investment in social services like welfare, education, Medicare, Social Security. I recognize there's a HUGE difference between professing to be Christian, and acting like a Christian (look at Fred Phelps (http://www.godhatesfags.com/)).

But if you compare a fundamentalist Baptist minister (Huckabee) to a more mainstream Christian like Obama or Clinton, or even McCain or Guliani, you can probably make some guesses as to where they stand on issues and what's going to be important to them.

[Scol]

I didn't mean to accuse you of that generalization, Speedymarie, which you indeed did not do. I was writin' in a hurry.

[speedymarie]

Ok, here's a concrete example of how a politicians beliefs directly effects policy in a huge way.

The current govenor of Texas is a fundamentalist who believes in creationism. He just appointed a creationist to head the Texas School Board.

Next year, Texas is reevaluating its state education standards, including their science standards.

Funnily enough, the Texas state science curriculum director just "resigned" (read was fired), because of an uproar created when she forwarded an email to her department announcing an author talk about how creationist politics are behind the push to teach ID in schools. According to those who fired her, this topic doesn't fall under her role of DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE.

So, just in time to revise the science standards, we have a creationist heading the State School Board, and the anti-creationist science curriculum director is out the door. Handy, no?

Is it remotely possible that when the state science standards are revised, they're going to end up devaluing evolution and inflating ID? Most likely, especially since there is a board who works on the standards, but whose recommendations can be accepted or rejected by a single "facilitator" who makes the final decisions (no rules about his qualifications, or any information about how the faciliator is chosen).

Why does this matter, do you ask? Well, Texas and California, two of the most populous states, are unique in that they have State Boards who choose textbooks for the ENTIRE state. In most states, the local districts choose their own textbooks. The textbook publishers, therefore, REALLY want to sell their textbooks in Texas and California (since getting the greenlight from one of those states guarantees huge sales), so the standards of those states are the ones that the textbook publishers most adhere to, in hopes of getting picked up there. So essentially, Texas's standards can affect what gets published in all textbooks.

http://defconblog.org/2007/07/creationist-to-head-texas-school-board/

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/DN-sboe_18tex.ART.State.Edition1.3bba4d6.html

http://www.texscience.org/reviews/facilitator-proposal.htm

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/11/29/1129science.html

[lazerbeanss]

I heart Huckabee for VP but McCain is still my guy.

[Hawkins]

I think people are overstating Huck's "fundy" ness, he said in the youtube debate that his faith guides him, but he doesn't take the bible literally

I don't like all the talk of who believes in science and who doesn't, clouds things. It's not black and white. Take for example, abortion, Life begins at conception, that's science. But it's not a human being, that's the courts. Catastrophic man made global warming existing is supposedly "science" but there's no real proof, just theories.

So both sides take liberties with science

I'm a Duncan Hunter guy, but he has no shot

[Scol]

Yes, global warning is a theory. So is evolution, electro-magnetism, entropy and gravity. There is no real "proof" of any of these theories. What there is, though, is a gargantuan shitload overwhelming amount of EVIDENCE that is universally accepted by the scientific community.

That's right-UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED. Fox News will trot out liars and con artists to pretend this is not so. No matter what their credentials may be, they're actors.

True, even that is not actual proof. But it sure as hell is evidence.

Classifying global warming as a "theory," in this day and age, is a tacit denial. And that's bullshit. I'm not gonnna debate this with you. I'll only declare "bullshit."

Bullshit.

[speedymarie]

Ok, whenever anyone pulls out the "just a theory" argument for evolution, climate change, etc., I have to direct them to this website:

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Because the problem is that the layman's use of "theory" and the scientific use of "theory" are miles apart.

Regular joes like us use "theory" to mean an idea that is unproven, a hunch or guess. In science, that is a hypothesis.

In science, there's nothing stronger than a theory. You develop a hypothesis, and then you collect evidence to prove or disprove the hypothesis. A hypothesis with lots of supporting evidence becomes a theory. The more evidence you collect, the stronger the theory, but it remains a theory - a way to describe observed phenomenon. A theory can be disproven, or in need of revision, if new observations show the theory as incorrect or incomplete. A theory never becomes a fact.

A fact is an observation. A theory explains the observation. Evolution is a fact. We can observe it in animals and in the fossil record. There are many theories for what CAUSES the evolution we observe. Darwin's theory isn't the theory of evolution (as it is so often called), it's the theory of natural selection (to explain the fact of evolution). So far, its the theory with the best support. But evolution itself is an observable fact. Some people like to claim ID is a theory - but there is no evidence to support it, so it's a best a hypothesis.

Climate change is happening - it is an observable fact. There are many, many theories as to the WHY - the explaination. Theories include man-made change (in many different ways), natural flucuations (caused by many different things), or some combination. The theories that involve man-made effects are gaining more and more evidence, but there's no conscensious on what this means for the future. But the fact of climate change is an observable phenomenon.

[Monahan]

Take for example, abortion, Life begins at conception, that's science. But it's not a human being, that's the courts.

Actually, that's not correct. Science has a much more basic definition for "life" than "conception of a human baby." Technically, sperm and eggs are both alive in scientific terms, so them coming together is merely a merging of life into something new, rather than the creation of life.

It's a semantic argument, which is why the court is involved at all. Some people believe that this conception equates to the cellular mass as having a soul and being a person, others believe that it's not fully formed enough to define it that way legally. And there's no scientific test to prove either side.

Speedy's post covered my thoughts on your use of the word "theory" in relation to global warming.

[Hawkins]

It's a semantic argument, which is why the court is involved at all. Some people believe that this conception equates to the cellular mass as having a soul and being a person, others believe that it's not fully formed enough to define it that way legally. And there's no scientific test to prove either side. I'm not pro-life necessarily, but I believe the semantical argument is to get around the whole guilt thing, but I still find it a bit disingenuous.

if it's growing inside, it's life, whether it has a "soul" or not seems to me, to be a smokescreen.

Maybe the way to get around the death penalty and abortion is to realize every life isn't precious, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't think Huck gets the nomination, Robertson ran second in Iowa in 1988, he'll show strong in the south, and might be in line for the Veep, but I think he's too weak on immigration to get the nomination, and I think that's a winning issue with the war on terror the GOP can run on.

[Monahan]

if it's growing inside, it's life, whether it has a "soul" or not seems to me, to be a smokescreen.

I don't think it's a smokescreen, I think it's the crux of the debate. You've got shit growing inside you all the time, but you don't get called a murderer for having your appendix out. Some clumps of cells are more equal than others. It's where you draw the line that matters, and the courts have done a pretty good job of finding the reasonable middle ground.

[Scol]

I don't think it's a smokescreen, I think it's the crux of the debate. You've got shit growing inside you all the time, but you don't get called a murderer for having your appendix out. Some clumps of cells are more equal than others. It's where you draw the line that matters, and the courts have done a pretty good job of finding the reasonable middle ground.

Well said. Very.

I'm internet incompetent, so I don't know how to double quote. But, Hawkins, you said something to the effect that 'Maybe the way to get around the death penalty and abortion is to realize all life isn't precious.' Apologies for any inaccruacies.

I'm not exactly sure what you meant. But my initial response to that is...WHAT?

Equating the death penalty to abortion, to me, suggests that abortion is murder.

Abortion is the "Aborting" of a clump of cells. We're all a clump of cells. An early stage fetus is a signifigantly SMALLER clump. Much, much smaller. Some think of it as a life. If so, it is a life without experiences, memories, emotional attachments, or anything other than infentisimal consciouness. If that.

Now, as far as the death penalty goes-it is a huge misconception to think that liberals are touchy-feely lovers of murderers. Speaking for myself, I say, fuck those amoral evil scumbags. They deserve some of the nastiest punishment we can dish out. Namely, prison.

The reason to be opposed to the death penalty is, that it diminishes us as a society. Regardless of our emotional urge for revenge, we must, in the name of justice, strive to stand above that. We're not evolved enough to play god. We can't repay murder with murder. Because it's not about any form of 'payment.' Justice and revenge are not the same thing.

If someone murdered one of my loved ones, I would went to set the motherfucker on fire. But my bloodlust, while human, would not be right.

I believe that for most women, abortion is an extremely painful choice. It is not made lightly.

And it is NOT murder. Stop that. Right now.

[Hawkins]

And it is NOT murder. Stop that. Right now. I was in no way calling it murder, calling it destruction of "life" not A life, but living cells

And I don't find anything wrong with getting rid of things we don't want that's the only comparison I draw between the d.p. and abortion. Please, legalize the morning after pill and make it over the counter.

just to put that aside.

[Scol]

I was lookin for an excuse to get up on my soapbox. I did misinterpret your message somewhat. Sorry.

Insomnia addles the brain. God bless.

[Aaron_Kozbial]

I just wanted to say some things as a christian and social conservative...not entirly a republican...I used to be a democrat when i lived in ohio...but that was a battleground state where people wern't as extream.
Now, as I've grown in faith, and talked to people who are both christian and into science, I've begun to doubt the big bang. It takes as much belief that matter always existed from the begining of time, exploaded at one point and we're all random particals banging together and life has no meaning but what you make of it, as it does to believe that there was a loving god who created the heavens and the universe who created us with the free will to choose him, we chose to sin and disobey him and instead of punishing us all to hell gave us a second chance to follow him.

I havn't seen any proof of macro evolution...micro, yeah...but not apes mutating...because the children of mutations dont nessisarily pass on their mutations so that doesn't really explain how things got here genetically Where are all these transition fossils? because there are alot of species and it kind of boggles that we have so many distinct animals and species and it started with a couple of cells that somehow formed out of molton lava?...nor how all matter was compacted into one place and then exploded somehow.

There are things in my life that can only describe as miricles. Things that i've prayed for that shouldnt have happened but did, and biblical truths. and there are so many miricals that have taken place throughout human existance that really only points to God and not coincidence..I'm open if someone can proove evolution and big bang...its true the bible doesnt say how god created everything.

So I can't really blame Huckabee for not believing that the universe is billions of years old or that we somehow are the spawn of apes.

As for abortion...well...i'm against it because i think the girls already made the choice when they decided to have sex...that being said, i'd be more open to it if it was rape, incest, or going to kill the mother. But that stuff can be proven...

Go Huckabee

[Scol]

I find several interesting points made in that last post.

The idea that scientific theories (read an earlier post if your inclination is to devalue the word 'theory' in a scientific context) based on huge amounts of evidence need to be 'proven.' Are you confusing the word 'theory' with 'hypothesis?'

Evidence is proof. It can be disproven. Science is an ongoing process that accounts for this concept.

There is no evidence for anything in the bible. I guess that's why the word 'faith' is so often used. If you didn't take it on faith, you wouldn't believe a word of it.

Now, on to the idea of "Biblical Truth." As I read the bible, I see those two words as mutually excuslive. There are so many preposterous passages in this book (Leviticus anyone?), and so many contradictions,I wonder, just what, exactly, is biblical truth?

As for your anti abortion stance. You point to the fact that the "girl" already made her choice when she chose to have sex. Are you taking the man out of this equation? If so, then doesn't the "girl" (note the childlike connotation that you suggest) have the right to take control of her own body?

I continue to be deeply offended by the notion that abortion is viewed as a quick-fix for casual sex. (Maybe you don't come out and say this, but that is the implication I picked up on.) Would you consider the idea that every "girl" who decides to have an abortion is making an extremely difficult and painful decision?

Oh yeah: Why oh why oh why are so many Christians Republican? Or, for that matter, social conservatives? Have you read the New Testament? Show me where Jesus is in favor of big business and the accumulation of wealth. He was practically a COMMUNIST for God's sake!

And, I don't mean this to sound like a personal attack. But, if you persist in misspelling so very many simple words, you open yourself up to ridicule. It may be unfair, but it can have unintended ironic consequences. Keep the dictionary close by.